Fwd: Re: NY Times Butterflying Article

Chris J. Durden drdn at mail.utexas.edu
Mon Jun 11 01:25:41 EDT 2001

>To: patfoley at csus.edu
>From: "Chris J. Durden" <drdn at mail.utexas.edu>
>Subject: Re: NY Times Butterflying Article
>   I don't think you get the point.
>   It is the anti-collection-movement that is advocated by NABA that is 
> the voice of crankyness. It is the voice of the animal rights fringe and 
> the anti vivisectionists. One gentleman in history who felt strongly 
> enough about the sanctity of butterfly life, to establish a law against 
> collecting them in his country was Ad*lph H*tl*r. Surely this was cranky. 
> I understand his law has never been repealed. Maybe one of our colleagues 
> in Germany has better information concerning the law against collecting 
> butterflies in his country.
>   We collectors just want to be left alone to do our thing, as we have a 
> historical right to do, and a scientific mandate to do.
>...........Chris Durden
>At 09:20 AM 6/10/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>>Paul and others,
>>The statements made by NABA on the two web pages Paul cites
>>1) do not discourage scientific or educational collecting at all,
>>2) do provide information and ideas about butterfly releases that
>>represent the consensus among population biologists with any knowledge
>>on the subject. Not everyone agrees with NABA's anti release position,
>>but it is hardly a radical anti-scientific position. Most professional
>>population biologists that I have spoken with appear to agree with NABA
>>on release. In fact, the issue seems so obvious that it is hard to get
>>most population biologists to even see why there is a controversy. We
>>have argued this out at length on this list. The only reason I reply to
>>Paul's message is that you are encouraging a stupid ganging-up on NABA.
>>NABA is not your enemy. Overpopulation and poorly regulated development
>>is the enemy of the butterflies.
>>For utter clarification
>>1) I am not anti-collection. I collect bees and occasional butterflies.
>>Collection is a scientific and educational necessity.
>>2) I _am_ against unregulated butterfly releases except for locally
>>raised butterflies. The reasons are on record.
>>3) I am not a NABA member, but I like most of what they do. I especially
>>like Glassberg's books.
>>4) I am not trying to defend every position that scientists or NABA
>>members have ever taken.
>>5) I do not like govenment regulation, but in the absence of
>>intelligent, responsible individual behavior, we need to fall back on
>>robotic laws. Maybe the anti-anti-collectors and the anti-anti-releasers
>>on this list could work out an intelligent, responsible approach to the
>>problems that they could convince the NABA people of. Then stop the
>>endless whining.
>>6) I don't care if 5000 or 10000 people collect butterflies. But I want
>>_all_ children to study butterflies and plants and bees. The effect on
>>butterfly populations if _all_ children collect, would be significant.
>>Furthermore, I want all children who want to collect to do so
>>responsibly. Butterflies are not stamps or coins, and they should be
>>treated differently. NABA is doing children a service to make this
>>clear. Collectors do them a disservice if they encourage irresponsible
>>7) If you want a voice in the forming of a scientific and/or social
>>consensus, the appropriate methods are scientific and social. Crankiness
>>and sniping are rarely as effective on others as they are satisfying to
>>the egos of cranky snipers.
>>Somewhere in the spectrum,
>>Patrick Foley
>>patfoley at csus.edu


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:


More information about the Leps-l mailing list